What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Utica College 2017-2018 season

Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

Fishman'81 said:
But, D-3 demands an intrinsically meaningless volume of teams per conference, even when that construct demonstrably dilutes the quality of the same.

So very, very, dumb.
Click to expand...

The number of teams per conference requirement is not meaningless. The D3 regulations mandate a ratio of 6.5:1 for the number of teams in the National Tournaments. Leagues settle in at the least number of teams necessary to earn a bid. If the number of teams per league were less than 7, we would have too many Pool A bids. Add two Pool A slots and we are down to only two Pool C bids. You object to the number of Pool C bids as being too small - having a minimum league size that is less than 7 would make the situation worse than it already is. It would actually be better in terms of Pool C bids if the minimum league size were increased, not reduced. Again, these regulations are consistent among all D3 sports - by a vote of all of the D3 programs in all sports. Like it or not, that is the way NCAA D3 is governed.
 
NUProf said:
The number of teams per conference requirement is not meaningless. The D3 regulations mandate a ratio of 6.5:1 for the number of teams in the National Tournaments. Leagues settle in at the least number of teams necessary to earn a bid. If the number of teams per league were less than 7, we would have too many Pool A bids. Add two Pool A slots and we are down to only two Pool C bids. You object to the number of Pool C bids as being too small - having a minimum league size that is less than 7 would make the situation worse than it already is. It would actually be better in terms of Pool C bids if the minimum league size were increased, not reduced. Again, these regulations are consistent among all D3 sports - by a vote of all of the D3 programs in all sports. Like it or not, that is the way NCAA D3 is governed.
Click to expand...


You're wasting your time....
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

NUProf said:
The number of teams per conference requirement is not meaningless. The D3 regulations mandate a ratio of 6.5:1 for the number of teams in the National Tournaments. Leagues settle in at the least number of teams necessary to earn a bid. If the number of teams per league were less than 7, we would have too many Pool A bids. Add two Pool A slots and we are down to only two Pool C bids. You object to the number of Pool C bids as being too small - having a minimum league size that is less than 7 would make the situation worse than it already is. It would actually be better in terms of Pool C bids if the minimum league size were increased, not reduced. Again, these regulations are consistent among all D3 sports - by a vote of all of the D3 programs in all sports. Like it or not, that is the way NCAA D3 is governed.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the primer, but that wasn't my point at all.

That D-3 ratio is a construct lacking any intrinsic merit. You, as a statistician, must realize that much. (Did you, for example, grade your classes while employing any "cliffs"..? Pretty sure that you used a "curve", instead.)

Call me a Utopian, but I'd like to see every college sport evaluated along a continuum. Even professional sports do that, after a fashion.

And the universe won't contract upon itself should D-3 hockey decide to make more sense; I'm pretty confident about that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

Fishman'81 said:
Thanks again for the primer, but that wasn't my point at all.

That D-3 ratio is a construct lacking any intrinsic merit. You, as a statistician, must realize that much. (Did you, for example, grade your classes while employing any "cliffs"..? Pretty sure that you used a "curve", instead.)

Call me a Utopian, but I'd like to see every college sport evaluated along a continuum. Even professional sports do that, after a fashion.

And the universe won't contract upon itself should D-3 hockey decide to make more sense; I'm pretty confident about that.
Click to expand...

In every sport the number of teams in the playoffs is determined before the season starts. In DIII (all sports) the number is found by dividing the number of. schools sponsoring teams by 6.5. In MLB the number of playoff teams per league is set at 5. In the NBA and NHL, the number is 16. In the NFL there is a fixed number as well, but since I don't follow football, I don't know how many. Because the number of schools sponsoring team in any sport can vary, the rule determined by the DIII council is fixed at a 1:6.5 ratio. I know I should try to stop explaining these things, but that is the process. If all schools participating in NCAA D3 hockey would decide to create a different organization (such as the way that the CFA tried to break away in football years ago), the rules could be changed. But you have to recognize that funding for all of the D3 championships comes largely from the slice of the NCAA budget that is allowed to the division. There is some revenue from ticket sales but the travel expenses are essentially paid for by money taken in from the NCAA DI basketball tournament. Turning their backs on the NCAA would also remove the funding source of the national tournament.
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

Bennycheck said:
That was fun. 8-3 UC. Now lets hope for some help and hope.
Click to expand...

Hobart and Geneseo helped Utica... UNE, not so much.

There is still a glimmer of hope. Oswego, IMO, should have been a spot behind UC even before tonight's game. Perhaps the committee will fiddle with the rankings to that effect on Monday. (That sort of thing has been known to happen on occasion.)

Still, with the CCC AQ in play, it's gonna be a tough nut to crack... I'd leave OSU out, but not UNE.
 
Last edited:
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

Does anyone have any idea what UC's strength of schedule would be without the two UCHC bottom feeders dragging it down?
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

UCAlum32 said:
Does anyone have any idea what UC's strength of schedule would be without the two UCHC bottom feeders dragging it down?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how to run that scenario, but you can bet your last dime that its SOS would have been far better had Utica scheduled its usual SUNYAC OOC opponents, as opposed to the 4 gimme-games it wasted vs. King's and Chatham. Furthermore, the other decent UCHC teams would have done something similar, which would have bolstered everyone's SOS by association.

It really speaks to the fundamentally illogical nature of the process, that adding cannon-fodder to a small conference just for the sake of more warm bodies somehow legitimizes it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

I'm a glass half full guy so I'm banking on the fact that despite the lack of the AQ, the NCAA has included an ECAC-W team every year since 1996 except for 2014 when a 16-10 Elmira upset Utica in the conf. finals. Not all the teams that got bids were highly ranked however there weren't as many upsets in league tourneys as this year either. Whether wrong or right, I believe the powers that be in the smoky room look at intangibles besides pure comparisons and tweak their final rankings to fit their agenda. If they have the attitude win your conference or don't get in, especially with the teams ranked 4-8 we have a chance. We'll see in the morning and I'll be pleased if they're in but not surprised if they're out.
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

Oh well, totally discounted the possibility of Western bias. So Marian was in no matter what happened over the weekend.
Great season for the Pioneers, wishing the seniors the best in their future endeavors.
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

Evidently Utica ended up 5th in East ahead of Oswego and Trinity. Final slot was between Utica and Marian. Marian's SOS was deciding factor.
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

UCBadger said:
Evidently Utica ended up 5th in East ahead of Oswego and Trinity. Final slot was between Utica and Marian. Marian's SOS was deciding factor.
Click to expand...

That was a virtual toss-up, true. Could probably make a stronger case for the Pool B bid, but that was very tight as well.

Very fun year anyway. This team was a blast to watch. Really going to miss the Senior class. Thanks, fellas, and good luck.
 
Last edited:
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

He really ought to have known on Sunday that the Colby AQ was going to sink UC, but I don't mind that he complained... Rational people need to keep-on complaining about the "process", or there's no chance at all that it will ever be reformed.

Smiling and nodding, attempting to "analyze" the un-analyzable, and otherwise lending any credence to the spurious calculus that currently exists..? That just serves to feed the status-quo.

EDIT: Should have said that UC's season was over the night before Sunday, when Nichols got in. Kinda the same deal, except that the CCC got another bid via that minor upset... UNE wasn't leaving the field, win or lose, while Trinity and Nichols simply switched places, and that didn't displace anyone. UNE is a tournament team by any yardstick; Nichols, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

jcase said:
IMO, for UC to be in the best possible position for a bid the following MUST happen:
1. UC must win (obviously)
2. UNE must win
3. Hobart must win

The following would be ideal but do not necessarily have to happen*:
1. Geneseo wins
2. Trinity wins twice
*if either lose they need to fall below UC in east rank. If not, UC is dead in the water.

If the five numbered things DO happen, the last bid will boil down to a UC/Marian comparison in the smoky room.
Click to expand...

Heenan clearly did not read my post which was nearly spot on. :D

Once UNE lost, I figured UC was toast. However, Oswego's rank dropping below UC (did not foresee that happening) replaced the UNE win req't and bumped the UC/Marian comp right to the top for the last bid as expected.
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

jcase said:
Heenan clearly did not read my post which was nearly spot on. :D

Once UNE lost, I figured UC was toast. However, Oswego's rank dropping below UC (did not foresee that happening) replaced the UNE win req't and bumped the UC/Marian comp right to the top for the last bid as expected.
Click to expand...

For UC have had a chance to beat out Marian, they would have had to clobber them on Win%, because the SOS value was low. The obvious rationale is that if UC's schedule was that weak, they should have won more games. Your Win% was good, but not stellar. I can see the logic.
 
Re: Utica College 2017-2018 season

jerrynu26 said:
They lost out to Point, and then on their second chance entry, lost out to Marian.
Click to expand...

The UWSP comparison was far closer then the Marian comparison, was my point (pun not intended). One could easily make a case for Utica vis-a-vis the Pool B, even employing D-3's shaky/fungible metrics...

And, Utica beats them both via KRACH. ;)

The D-3 thing is a very opaque/BS "metric", to put it politely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top